From: Kevin W. Woodruff (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Sep 11 2000 - 16:25:44 EDT
The term "textus receptus" has two meanings as it were. It is used in a
narrow sense to describe the text that Eramus created in 1516 and revised
several times. It is also used broadly to refer to a number of texts that
are closely related to the Erasmian text such as those that wete published
by Stephanus (Robert Estienne) the Elzeviers, and by Theodore Beza. All are
considered to a greater or lesser degree the TR although they disagree with
one another in small details. The common TR in use today did not exist until
1881 when Frederick H. A. Scrivener gave us the TR which theoretically lay
behind the translation of the KJV/AV of 1611. Actually the AV translators
used several different versions of the TR and so theirs was actually an
eclectic one (They used the TR editions found in the Complutensian Polyglot
of 1514, Erasmus's of 1516,1519,1522,1527,1535, Aldus of 1518, Colinĉus of
1534, Stephanus's of 1546,1549,1550,1551, the Antwerp Polyglot of 1572, and
Beza's of 1560,1565, 1582, 1589, and 1598). Scrivener's text as a whole did
not exist until 1881. Actually Hodges and Farstad's attempt is not of the
TR but of the broader Majority or Byzantine text-type (although their
stemmatic appoach approach leads them to sometimes choose minority readings
in the Pericope Adulterĉ and in Revelation). The closest pure Majority Text
we have is the one done by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont. Dr.
Robinson is a frequent contributor to the B-Greek Listserv and can give you
At 06:36 PM 9/11/2000 GMT, Mark Wilson wrote:
>Ted Mann wrote:
>>I would be appreciative if someone would be kind enough to provide me
>>with a list of those passages in the TR which are not supported by any
>>Greek manuscript evidence at all. Many thanks.
>This question reminded me that I have never understood something about the
>I have read Dr. White's King James Only Controvery, and found it most
>helpful. However, I was a bit disappointed that Dr. White no where defines
>the TR is such a way as to clarify it for me.
>He does indicate that the TR was not a "unit" until the printing of the KJV
>in 1611. That is, prior to that, it was several manuscripts of the Byzantine
>Notice this comment by Dr. Wallace:
>"The Textus Receptus here refers to the edition used by Hodges and Farstad,
>namely, the Oxford edition of 1825."
>This leads me to believe that the TR is still not a "unit." That is, there
>appears to be multiple "editions." And Dr. White actually provides a
>comparison chart that compares one TR with another TR.
>Could someone help me understand what the TR is? Or, what the TRs are?
>Does multiple "editions" mean that there are multiple TRs today?
>If I asked you to hand me the TR, would you need to inquire "which one?"
>Is the TR the sum total of many MSS, where each complied "edition" may vary
>slightly one from another?
>Dr. Wallace's reference to the 1825 Oxford edition leads me to believe there
>are other editions. If so, in what way do these "editions" differ? Are these
>editions "translations" or "manuscripts?"
>See! I told you I was confused. I don't even know what questions to ask!
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: email@example.com
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.
Library Director/Reference Librarian
Professor of New Testament Greek
Cierpke Memorial Library
Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary
1815 Union Ave.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
United States of America
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:35 EDT